The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #155564   Message #3661550
Posted By: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
18-Sep-14 - 01:07 PM
Thread Name: 'Traditional' folk/rock - meaningless?
Subject: RE: 'Traditional' folk/rock - meaningless?
Two points about folk-rock.

Judging from frequently repeated comments on this site about'diction' and 'clarity', many people who are drawn to traditional song are drawn to it foremost for the words rather than the tune and if they can't hear the words the experience loses its meaning for them. Most good rock music of any variety, on the other hand, is about the sum total of the sound created: the mood, the vibe, the melody, the arrangement, the playing - and the words. However, because the words are rarely given priority over the other aspects of the overall sound, you'll often hear mysterious snatches of them rather than the whole lyric on a plate clear as a bell. This subsuming of the words to overarching musical experience is often one of the hallmarks of great rock music. I personally don't care whether I can hear the words when I'm listening to rock - I'm more worried about whether the tune and the arrangement is any good, and if it isn't, the most brilliant lyrics ever cannot even begin to compensate. I'd rather read the lyrics as poetry when that happens.

If traditional songs are given a rock setting, most rock fans aren't going to be that bothered about whether they can hear the words or not. Folkies are. However, if folk-rock bands compromise the overall sound to make sure the word-hungry folkies are satisfied, they will also be compromising the effectiveness of their music as good rock music. The idea of rock music with the vocals high enough in the mix to please the folkies or the words enunciated painstakingly clearly and correctly makes for pretty shit rock. Good diction in rock sucks.

If you want to listen first and foremost to the lyrics and in order to do so you want to reduce the music to 'appropriate accompaniment' stick to folk! Please! Rock music isn't for you...

****************

Meanwhile, folk-rock is a pretty meaningless label nowadays, unless it is used mainly to describe music that regurgitates the formula laid down 45 years ago by a handful of UK bands like Fairport and Steeleye or to describe music with roots in 50 year old American bands like the Byrds (personally I prefer the latter). I'm not reallly interested in folk-rock heritage/tribute bands - they seem primarily to be part of the retromania/nostalgia industry. I'll make an expection for the Wolf People, but only just.

Rock itself is almost as meaningless a terms as folk. Heavy rock? Indie rock? Post Rock? Country Rock? Maths Rock? Punk rock? Garage rock? Soft rock? Psych rock? Jazz rock? The list is endless. What I do know is that most folk -ock appends its folk to pretty moribund and middle-of-th-road rock forms. Which is sad.

But do give me examples that prove me wrong...